Regents Of The University Of California V. Bakke

It was also concluded that the IHSAA broke one of their own rules in regards to the Hardship Rule. According to the Transfer Rule: Rule 19, even when B.J. was granted partial-eligibility, the IHSAA was violating Rule 19.4: “A student should be ineligible for 365 days if he or she transfers schools for athletic reasons”. On top of that, the IHSAA often times issues grants to children who move schools because of their parents. Yet, the IHSAA ignored the facts provided by the plaintiff and his family that would counteract their decision. Furthermore, the IHSAA claimed that the exception holds true when it includes children and/or public interest. The court agreed upon these standards, proving more reasons as to why B.J. should’ve been given the

Two more cases that aroused much debate on the issue were the 2003 cases of Gratz vs. Bollinger and Grutter vs. Bollinger, in which two more-than-qualified students applied to the University of Michigan and were denied due to acceptance policies. The two women, Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter, took their cases to the Supreme Court with the plea that the University of Michigan is “treating people differently based on skin color, and that is unconstitutional” (Mears). The university openly stated that they have a point system in their acceptance process in which students receive extra point if they are of minority status. Mary Sue Coleman, the president of the University of Michigan stated, “[W]e

Ewing made a written appeal to the board to reconsider the decision, which was granted one week after the initial determination. Ewing “appealed personally and explained why he believed that his core on the test did not fairly reflect his academic progress or potential” (Kaplin & Lee, 2013, p. 467), his appeal was unsuccessful. The nine voting members again voted unanimously to remove Ewing from the program. Ewing again appealed the Board’s decision, the executive committee of the medical school granted Ewing the

The Equal Protection Clause derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifies “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” As a part of the Reconstruction Amendments, the aforementioned clause was meant to ensure racial equality in the Reconstruction Period and has been applied successfully against the affirmative action. Introduced in United States v. Carolene Products Co., the strict scrutiny has been applied to the cases, in which a fundamental constitutional rights have been infringed or a government action applies to a suspect classification (i.e. race, religion, national background). Specifically, in regards to Bakke v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) concluded that, considering that the University of California, Davis received several Caucasian applicants for its special admission program in 1973 and 1974 and that none of the applicants received the admission to the program since the start, the program unfairly administered in favor of minority races and, therefore, violated the rights of the white applicants under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, from Hopwood v. State of Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled under strict scrutiny that, the affirmative action imposed by the University of Texas School of Law (“the law school”) violates the Fourteenth Amendment since neither the law school nor the University of Texas system has proved a proof of

The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was argued on October 12, 1977 and decision of the Supreme Court was decided on June 26, 1978. It was questioned if the University of California violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by having an affirmative action policy that led to repeated rejection of Bakke’s application for admission to UC medical school at Davis.

The district court’s decision to dismiss this case is based on the Plaintiffs failure to prove theory of purposeful discrimination, which is denied under Alexander v. Sandoval where the Supreme Court ruled that even if a federally funded entity knowingly adopts a policy that creates disparate impact, Title VI still affords no remedy and also because Proposition 16 is a facially neutral policy that happened to create a racially disparate impact, it holds no bearing to Title VI. The court ultimately found that Proposition 16 was created to improve ALL student athlete graduation rights. As for Pryor’s ADA claim, it too was dismissed because Pryor lacked the standing to remedy her loss of eligibility due to the fact the NCAA may still grant her the relief she seeks.

In the years since, interpretations of these laws by the U.S. Supreme Court has defined how affirmative action policies are to be implemented. The Court has held that affirmative action policies are Constitutional wherever it can be shown that ""¦ there has been a clear history of racial discrimination" (United Press International). In 1978, the Court ruling in Regents of University of California v. Bakke defined the concept of 'reverse discrimination' by holding that slots for medical school admissions could not be set aside for minorities, because it could result in admitting less qualified candidates based on racial quotas. In 2003, in Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court defined the concept of 'individualized consideration' when it declared that an undergraduate affirmative action policy at the University of Michigan was unconstitutional because it focused on the race of applicants rather than their

The 1960s had arrived, and equality in theory was being achieved, but it was still not being practiced in reality. As mentioned earlier in Sweatt v. Painter, various leaders such as Antonio Maceo Smith, Carter Wesley, and John J. Jones sued the University of Texas because of the denial of admission to Texas Law School. The Supreme Court ruled that Sweatt can attend the University of Texas, which meant integration. It was in ways similar to Brown v. Board where they ruled segregated schools were unequal, which led to being unconstitutional.

Question: Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?

During 1978, Alan Bakke was denied acceptance into the Medical School at the University of California. Bakke had a higher grade point average and higher test scores than other students who got accepted. Under the circumstances, Bakke stated he was denied acceptance because of his race. Not only did Bakke get denied because of his race, was a white male. Immediately he noticed and took the case to court. The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution stated Bakkes rights being the Equal Protection Clause. (Bakke v. University of California)

In response to the allegations, the University of Michigan asserted that their policy was designed to promote diversity and ensure “unique contributions to the character of the Law School” (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). The University of Michigan maintained that they did not employ racial quotas rather they systemically focused on improving diversity in each entering class. The University associated their policy to Regents of Uni. Cal. v. Bakke (1978) which addressed race in university admission decisions.

In 1994, a new case, Hopwood v. The University of Texas, was ruled on by the circuit court and interpreted in such a manner as to effectively end affirmative action in higher education for the states of Texas and Louisiana. The plaintiffs for the case were four applicants to the law school of The University of Texas, each of whom were denied admission while minority applicants with lower

In Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, Scott Ewing sued the University of Michigan after he was dismissed from their medical program. The case took nearly three years to settle, eventually coming before the United States Supreme Court. In the end, the court ruled in favor of the university after much evidence was used including marketing used by the university pertaining to its medical program, pamphlets, and other policies of the institution (Kaplin and Lee, 2013). The case arose upon Ewing failing the university’s mandatory medical exam, and as a result, he was dismissed from the university’s medical program before he could complete his final two years. Upon his dismissal, Ewing filed a complaint against the Regents of the University of Michigan, “asserting a right to retake the NBME Part I test on three separate theories, two predicated on state law and one based on federal law” (FindLaw's United States Supreme Court, 2016).).

& Martinez, 2003). The Supreme Court ruled that the University of California was wrong in the way they approached a special admissions program that was open only to minority applicants (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). The ruling argued that the special admissions program violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. stated in his opinion on the Bakke case that quotas “would hinder rather than further attainment of genuine diversity” (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003, p. 141). Justice Powell, Jr. also wrote that race is only one part of many factors that an institution can consider in truly achieving a heterogeneous student population (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). By siding with Bakke in this case, the Supreme Court essentially outlawed the use of racial quotas in admissions processes in higher education, yet universities took this as it is okay to use race as a selective factor as long as there are no quotas (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003).

Colleges and Universities are still trying to move beyond race-based admissions. In the case of a young woman who applied to the University of Washington who talks about her home life with her father abusing her mother and her mother abusing drugs. This essay from the high school senior impacted the readers into helping to ban affirmative action from university admissions. In February, Florida joined the growing number of states that struck affirmative action from admissions. California in 1996, voters eliminated race-based admissions policies, and the same year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did the same in Texas in Hopwood vs. State of Texas. The University of Massachusetts Amherst and the University of Virginia have elected to significantly reduce the role of